The primary focus of this course is Immersive Learning Simulations. How do ILS' compare to other learning environments.
What kind of challenges face educators who embrace technologies which are not broadly adopted? Are those challenges different for ILS adoption?
To what extent is the focus of this investigation self-indulgent and impractical, and to what extent is it legitimately contributing to a better future?
Digital Media Learning and ILS
Instructors want to prepare their students for life in the 21st century. The ongoing challenge of engaging students in learning is to translate the relevancy of the course content to the outside world. Remaining contemporary and adapting to the needs of the learner necessitates an increasing call to move past text-book lessons and introduce a technical approach that embraces digital media. We have witnessed an explosion of digitally native students to the classroom who use social networking sites, YouTube, blogs, and engage in hours of video gaming which increases the urgency of teachers to incorporate digital media in the content of instruction. Engaging the learner to facilitative learning is about transforming the course content and instruction to meet the demands for 21st century skills and 21st century methodology. Gee (2003 & 2007) and Shaffer (2007) stated "that digital media holds out the potential to hone the skills necessary for success in our globalized world . They can enhance the learning of traditional print literacy and situation understandings in the content areas" (in Gee & Levine, 2009: p.48) Digital media requires a technical mastery that encourages learners to embrace instead of shy away from technical learning, encouraging learners to use digital media in constructive and original ways. Gee and Levine contends that "digital media enables young learners to accumulate and store knowledge that cuts across home, community, and school settings." (as cited in Gee& Levine, 2009, p.48) However, an important challenge that remains for digital media is its need to readdress the current perception barrier, as informal media used only outside the class and not a beneficial methodology to learning.
Immersive Learning Simulations
Integrating a digital media approach in classroom instruction is seen in the increasing introduction of educational simulations which are part of a broad genre of immersive learning simulations focusing on a player becoming proficient in knowledge and skills used in the real world. Dickey (2005a) states, "three dimensional (3-D) immersive worlds are an emerging medium currently being used in traditional and distance education." (as quoted in Hew &Cheung, 2009, p.33) New Media Consortium and EDUCASE Learning Initiative defines 3-D virtual worlds as 3-D environments where people immerse in worlds by means of an avatar that moves through space by walking, running, and flying (Hew& Cheung , 2009). These 3-D worlds are different than computer games as their primary goals are not focused on entertainment and having fun (although this does occur) but about promoting a level of engagement in education. (Aldrich, 2009) Educational simulation’s function is to serve as a formal learning program with specific learning goals while meeting the objectives of program goals needed to accomplish desired results. Participants are required to develop real skills through emergent learning. Participation can include single player, multiplayer, or massively, multi-player, and include many genres. Aldrich(2009) explains" that learners make a series of decisions through a series of multiple choices to progress through an event (or story) that develops in different ways according to the choices each learner makes."(p.24) They promote learning for the reluctant learner through their ease of use, distinct decisions employed , and content style that is visually appealing (Aldrich, 2009). Hew’s & Cheung’s (2008) review of the empirical research studies of three dimensional immersive virtual worlds in education found that virtual worlds are utilized for three primary reasons: (1) communication spaces, (2) simulation of space (spatial) and (3) experiential spaces ("acting" on the world).
Communication spaces are defined by Robbins (2007) as "the virtual worlds to communicate information from one person to another." (in Hew & Cheung, 2008, p.36) This virtual communication can be both verbal and nonverbal forms. Verbal communication is usually seen in text-based chat function while nonverbal communication can be established through avatar appearance, posturing and gestures (Hew& Cheung 2009).
Hew & Cheung (2009) contend a second primary reason for utilization of virtual worlds for education is the simulation of space (spatial). A characteristic of the virtual world is its ability to project a simulation of 3-D space or spatial aspect offering a player the chance to be immersed in the 3-D environment with an avatar.
In addition to employing virtual worlds as communication and spatial spaces, some educators use them as experiential spaces. (Hew& Cheung 2009). Chee, (2007) and Kolb(1984) refer to experiential learning cycle concept which maintain users in virtual worlds can interact with objects in a 3-D environment, allowing them to make decisions and examine the results of their actions. They can test hypotheses about the world and create meaning from their participation. (Hew& Cheung, 2009). As Chow, Andrews and Trueman (2007) state "the use of virtual worlds allows users to virtually experience information as opposed to just reading text." (Hew& Cheung 2009).
Challenges to broad adoption
The pedagogical application of Immersive simulations learning in a setting that is firmly established in traditional modes of instruction can be challenging even when instructors are motivated to moving , growing and adapting their instruction into the 21st century. Prensky (2008), states, "creating a good complex game for education is a large, difficult undertaking." Will Wright, designer of Sim City,the Sims and Spore, states, "Creating a good game is hard enough; creating one based on educational content is even harder". (Prensky, 2008, p.1009)
On average a great deal of money and time in developing and testing that involves usually large, specialized teams is needed to put forth a good complex game. (Prensky, 2008) Prensky (2008) notes that the creators of Econ 201 discovered that even motivated graduate students need a lot of time to train and integrate into game creation teams and even then, only remained for a limited amount of time. These facts create a strong argument against approaching complex game curricular development as a student-only creation with the exception of possibly utilizing students already in university game-creation programs (Prensky, 2008). Prensky (2009) reasons that a program has to be organized to make the creation of complex curricular games occur, and this would lend itself to open up pathways for student involvement at all levels in the process.
No good model has emerged for making and distributing complex curricular games that involves some combinations of both students and professional game companies despite the efforts of small game companies trying to establish a profit at selling games that are more or less curricular (Prensky, 2009).
According to Prensky (2009), eventually when entire course curricular games do come into existence, there will still remain additional obstacles to their adaption into instruction. Much work remains around the maintenance, school system integration, and teacher adoption of such games. A drawback of incorporating complex game in today's classrooms is that whether classrooms are wired or wireless, most class periods are 45 minutes. This time frame does not contribute to learning by means of complex games. Also, questions arise around exactly how to integrate complex games into the educational process (e.g. in class or outside of class or a combination), the teacher's role in the process , and whether the course content applications created while learning with complex games will be acknowledged for academic credit. (Prensky, 2009) These unanswered questions and challenges are exacerbated when administrators do not advocate that all teachers become digitally trained, and hence, digital learning is not recognized as a valid methodology of instruction.
Lim (2008) posits practical concerns come to light as well. As schools are generally highly structured, with a specific curricula, minimal optional time, and inflexible, rigid schedules this creates an environment where complex games may be discarded as sufficient time cannot be devoted to it. (Prensky, 2008). Lim (2008) states, "It may be introduced for an hour on Monday, students may be allowed to explore the features of the game for an hour on Wednesday, they may get to play the game for an hour on Friday, and then they are expected to reflect and discuss about the game the following Monday. These are not the most pedagogically sound or desirable method for getting the most out of the games, or for learning" (cited in Prensky, 2008, p.1011) Few schools are willing to change their period or weekly structure to adapt to the needs of learning with complex l games (Prensky, 2009).
Cultural challenges seem to be another hurdle to overcome when all faculty do not broadly utilize these emerging technologies. Lim (2000) and others quoted in his paper suggest " that culturally, our schools are organized around social control rather than learning. Games certainly do not help replace the prevailing 'control' paradigm of teaching ('teachers explaining to the class') with a new student-originated-and -preferred paradigm of students learning on their own, with guidance." (Prensky, 2009, p.1012).
Immersive simulations like most digital technology in the classroom do not pair well with the old 'teacher lecturing' paradigm’. Lim (2008) explains that this lack of congruency between the two methodologies when he suggests some possible explanations such as its the form of teaching, the power relations or " because students are already used to other, more interactive forms of learning in their life outside of school". ( cited in Prensky, 2008, p.1012)
Computer games, along with other digital technologies, 'challenge the prevailing culture of schools, where externally determined knowledge is packed clearly for teachers to dispense to their students. Bringing games into schools merely reproduces these power relations or knowledge transmission". (Lim, 2008 as cited in Prensky, 2008, p.1012) The result is unlikely that any significant increase in learning engagement among students will occur' (Prensky, 2009)
The Future of Education
The student-centered world of "after-school” seems to be the best environment for digital technologies to work as students teach themselves with adult guidance. Lim (2008) highlights suggestions for maximizing the advantage of games and other digital technologies to "transform the culture and practices by adapting the following: · Re-designing the curriculum around driving questions that are meaningful to students; · Creating greater opportunities for students with different needs · Re-organizing the highly segmented school day to be more flexible, allowing longer blocks of time when needed · Influencing the outside classroom experiences and expertise of students; · Shifting assessments away from evaluative structures that function to support social reproduction, towards opportunities to support learning.' (cited in Prensky, 2009, p.1012)
Regardless of how one perceives the old paradigm of teaching by 'tell-test' and lecturing as an old fashion approach, an expression of social power or just unsuccessful teaching method, Prensky (2009) contends it is on its way out, "because it will no longer be effective at getting students to learn". (p.1017) Prensky (2009) believes that the old paradigm will continue as long as we permit teachers to get away with using it and as long teachers remain unmotivated to change. It is his philosophy that pressure from students not wanting to be bored, pressures from administrators in addition to the need to move to 21st century educational system that operates better with technology, will occur sooner than later in producing this needed change from our traditional modes of instruction.
Prensky (2009) predicts a new learning paradigm will evolve gradually from after school programs as students teach themselves with guidance from teachers and peers. Teaching using the old paradigm will get harder to do, and using a new paradigm will actually be easier than remaining with the old one. The creation of detailed lectures and lesson plans will fall to the wayside as students are instead given guidance and support in their efforts. He foresees computer labs remaining open until midnight and the new task for teachers is to ask the probing questions, checking the students are reaching accurate conclusions, and assisting them in evaluating their work. (Prensky, (2009,)
Prensky (2009) has predictions for the future of educational games. He positions that simulations and games built by students will more than likely become the norm. Games will become more powerful, easier to use and designed especially for education. Funding from grants and contests will propel forward the emergence of partnerships with students, teachers and professional and commercial freelancers. There will come a time when it will be natural for a student to develop a game similar to writing a paper or student lesson plan. Similar to YouTube channel, a channel of distribution will come into existence that will embrace and distribute student created games to teachers and learners. "Teachers will bring the cream to the top" says Prensky. (2009) He sees the educational game world resembling the commercial game world, with the inclusion of online reviews, discussions and multiple sequels to the best and most successful games. He envisions successful games carrying students on a path of higher learning not achievable in today's standard classroom.
References Aldrich, C. (2009). Because You Can’t Learn to Ride a Bicycle From a Book. T+D, 24-26. Retrieved from Wilson Omnifile database. (200933507322011) Gee, J. P., & Levine, M. H. (2009). Welcome to our virtual worlds. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 48-52. Retrieved from WilsonOmnifile database. (200906003461009) Hew,, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010, January). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in k-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33-55. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x Prensky, M. ( 2008, November). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1004-1019. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_2.x
What kind of challenges face educators who embrace technologies which are not broadly adopted? Are those challenges different for ILS adoption?
To what extent is the focus of this investigation self-indulgent and impractical, and to what extent is it legitimately contributing to a better future?
Digital Media Learning and ILS
Instructors want to prepare their students for life in the 21st century. The ongoing challenge of engaging students in learning is to translate the relevancy of the course content to the outside world. Remaining contemporary and adapting to the needs of the learner necessitates an increasing call to move past text-book lessons and introduce a technical approach that embraces digital media. We have witnessed an explosion of digitally native students to the classroom who use social networking sites, YouTube, blogs, and engage in hours of video gaming which increases the urgency of teachers to incorporate digital media in the content of instruction. Engaging the learner to facilitative learning is about transforming the course content and instruction to meet the demands for 21st century skills and 21st century methodology. Gee (2003 & 2007) and Shaffer (2007) stated "that digital media holds out the potential to hone the skills necessary for success in our globalized world . They can enhance the learning of traditional print literacy and situation understandings in the content areas" (in Gee & Levine, 2009: p.48) Digital media requires a technical mastery that encourages learners to embrace instead of shy away from technical learning, encouraging learners to use digital media in constructive and original ways. Gee and Levine contends that "digital media enables young learners to accumulate and store knowledge that cuts across home, community, and school settings." (as cited in Gee& Levine, 2009, p.48) However, an important challenge that remains for digital media is its need to readdress the current perception barrier, as informal media used only outside the class and not a beneficial methodology to learning.
Immersive Learning Simulations
Integrating a digital media approach in classroom instruction is seen in the increasing introduction of educational simulations which are part of a broad genre of immersive learning simulations focusing on a player becoming proficient in knowledge and skills used in the real world. Dickey (2005a) states, "three dimensional (3-D) immersive worlds are an emerging medium currently being used in traditional and distance education." (as quoted in Hew &Cheung, 2009, p.33) New Media Consortium and EDUCASE Learning Initiative defines 3-D virtual worlds as 3-D environments where people immerse in worlds by means of an avatar that moves through space by walking, running, and flying (Hew& Cheung , 2009). These 3-D worlds are different than computer games as their primary goals are not focused on entertainment and having fun (although this does occur) but about promoting a level of engagement in education. (Aldrich, 2009) Educational simulation’s function is to serve as a formal learning program with specific learning goals while meeting the objectives of program goals needed to accomplish desired results. Participants are required to develop real skills through emergent learning. Participation can include single player, multiplayer, or massively, multi-player, and include many genres. Aldrich(2009) explains" that learners make a series of decisions through a series of multiple choices to progress through an event (or story) that develops in different ways according to the choices each learner makes."(p.24) They promote learning for the reluctant learner through their ease of use, distinct decisions employed , and content style that is visually appealing (Aldrich, 2009). Hew’s & Cheung’s (2008) review of the empirical research studies of three dimensional immersive virtual worlds in education found that virtual worlds are utilized for three primary reasons: (1) communication spaces, (2) simulation of space (spatial) and (3) experiential spaces ("acting" on the world).
Communication spaces are defined by Robbins (2007) as "the virtual worlds to communicate information from one person to another." (in Hew & Cheung, 2008, p.36) This virtual communication can be both verbal and nonverbal forms. Verbal communication is usually seen in text-based chat function while nonverbal communication can be established through avatar appearance, posturing and gestures (Hew& Cheung 2009).
Hew & Cheung (2009) contend a second primary reason for utilization of virtual worlds for education is the simulation of space (spatial). A characteristic of the virtual world is its ability to project a simulation of 3-D space or spatial aspect offering a player the chance to be immersed in the 3-D environment with an avatar.
In addition to employing virtual worlds as communication and spatial spaces, some educators use them as experiential spaces. (Hew& Cheung 2009). Chee, (2007) and Kolb(1984) refer to experiential learning cycle concept which maintain users in virtual worlds can interact with objects in a 3-D environment, allowing them to make decisions and examine the results of their actions. They can test hypotheses about the world and create meaning from their participation. (Hew& Cheung, 2009). As Chow, Andrews and Trueman (2007) state "the use of virtual worlds allows users to virtually experience information as opposed to just reading text." (Hew& Cheung 2009).
Challenges to broad adoption
The pedagogical application of Immersive simulations learning in a setting that is firmly established in traditional modes of instruction can be challenging even when instructors are motivated to moving , growing and adapting their instruction into the 21st century. Prensky (2008), states, "creating a good complex game for education is a large, difficult undertaking." Will Wright, designer of Sim City, the Sims and Spore, states, "Creating a good game is hard enough; creating one based on educational content is even harder". (Prensky, 2008, p.1009)
On average a great deal of money and time in developing and testing that involves usually large, specialized teams is needed to put forth a good complex game. (Prensky, 2008) Prensky (2008) notes that the creators of Econ 201 discovered that even motivated graduate students need a lot of time to train and integrate into game creation teams and even then, only remained for a limited amount of time. These facts create a strong argument against approaching complex game curricular development as a student-only creation with the exception of possibly utilizing students already in university game-creation programs (Prensky, 2008). Prensky (2009) reasons that a program has to be organized to make the creation of complex curricular games occur, and this would lend itself to open up pathways for student involvement at all levels in the process.
No good model has emerged for making and distributing complex curricular games that involves some combinations of both students and professional game companies despite the efforts of small game companies trying to establish a profit at selling games that are more or less curricular (Prensky, 2009).
According to Prensky (2009), eventually when entire course curricular games do come into existence, there will still remain additional obstacles to their adaption into instruction. Much work remains around the maintenance, school system integration, and teacher adoption of such games. A drawback of incorporating complex game in today's classrooms is that whether classrooms are wired or wireless, most class periods are 45 minutes. This time frame does not contribute to learning by means of complex games. Also, questions arise around exactly how to integrate complex games into the educational process (e.g. in class or outside of class or a combination), the teacher's role in the process , and whether the course content applications created while learning with complex games will be acknowledged for academic credit. (Prensky, 2009) These unanswered questions and challenges are exacerbated when administrators do not advocate that all teachers become digitally trained, and hence, digital learning is not recognized as a valid methodology of instruction.
Lim (2008) posits practical concerns come to light as well. As schools are generally highly structured, with a specific curricula, minimal optional time, and inflexible, rigid schedules this creates an environment where complex games may be discarded as sufficient time cannot be devoted to it. (Prensky, 2008). Lim (2008) states, "It may be introduced for an hour on Monday, students may be allowed to explore the features of the game for an hour on Wednesday, they may get to play the game for an hour on Friday, and then they are expected to reflect and discuss about the game the following Monday. These are not the most pedagogically sound or desirable method for getting the most out of the games, or for learning" (cited in Prensky, 2008, p.1011) Few schools are willing to change their period or weekly structure to adapt to the needs of learning with complex l games (Prensky, 2009).
Cultural challenges seem to be another hurdle to overcome when all faculty do not broadly utilize these emerging technologies. Lim (2000) and others quoted in his paper suggest " that culturally, our schools are organized around social control rather than learning. Games certainly do not help replace the prevailing 'control' paradigm of teaching ('teachers explaining to the class') with a new student-originated-and -preferred paradigm of students learning on their own, with guidance." (Prensky, 2009, p.1012).
Immersive simulations like most digital technology in the classroom do not pair well with the old 'teacher lecturing' paradigm’. Lim (2008) explains that this lack of congruency between the two methodologies when he suggests some possible explanations such as its the form of teaching, the power relations or " because students are already used to other, more interactive forms of learning in their life outside of school". ( cited in Prensky, 2008, p.1012)
Computer games, along with other digital technologies, 'challenge the prevailing culture of schools, where externally determined knowledge is packed clearly for teachers to dispense to their students. Bringing games into schools merely reproduces these power relations or knowledge transmission". (Lim, 2008 as cited in Prensky, 2008, p.1012) The result is unlikely that any significant increase in learning engagement among students will occur' (Prensky, 2009)
The Future of Education
The student-centered world of "after-school” seems to be the best environment for digital technologies to work as students teach themselves with adult guidance. Lim (2008) highlights suggestions for maximizing the advantage of games and other digital technologies to "transform the culture and practices by adapting the following:
· Re-designing the curriculum around driving questions that are meaningful to students;
· Creating greater opportunities for students with different needs
· Re-organizing the highly segmented school day to be more flexible, allowing longer blocks of time when needed
· Influencing the outside classroom experiences and expertise of students;
· Shifting assessments away from evaluative structures that function to support social reproduction, towards opportunities to support learning.' (cited in Prensky, 2009, p.1012)
Regardless of how one perceives the old paradigm of teaching by 'tell-test' and lecturing as an old fashion approach, an expression of social power or just unsuccessful teaching method, Prensky (2009) contends it is on its way out, "because it will no longer be effective at getting students to learn". (p.1017) Prensky (2009) believes that the old paradigm will continue as long as we permit teachers to get away with using it and as long teachers remain unmotivated to change. It is his philosophy that pressure from students not wanting to be bored, pressures from administrators in addition to the need to move to 21st century educational system that operates better with technology, will occur sooner than later in producing this needed change from our traditional modes of instruction.
Prensky (2009) predicts a new learning paradigm will evolve gradually from after school programs as students teach themselves with guidance from teachers and peers. Teaching using the old paradigm will get harder to do, and using a new paradigm will actually be easier than remaining with the old one. The creation of detailed lectures and lesson plans will fall to the wayside as students are instead given guidance and support in their efforts. He foresees computer labs remaining open until midnight and the new task for teachers is to ask the probing questions, checking the students are reaching accurate conclusions, and assisting them in evaluating their work. (Prensky, (2009,)
Prensky (2009) has predictions for the future of educational games. He positions that simulations and games built by students will more than likely become the norm. Games will become more powerful, easier to use and designed especially for education. Funding from grants and contests will propel forward the emergence of partnerships with students, teachers and professional and commercial freelancers. There will come a time when it will be natural for a student to develop a game similar to writing a paper or student lesson plan. Similar to YouTube channel, a channel of distribution will come into existence that will embrace and distribute student created games to teachers and learners. "Teachers will bring the cream to the top" says Prensky. (2009) He sees the educational game world resembling the commercial game world, with the inclusion of online reviews, discussions and multiple sequels to the best and most successful games. He envisions successful games carrying students on a path of higher learning not achievable in today's standard classroom.
References
Aldrich, C. (2009). Because You Can’t Learn to Ride a Bicycle From a Book. T+D, 24-26. Retrieved from Wilson Omnifile database. (200933507322011)
Gee, J. P., & Levine, M. H. (2009). Welcome to our virtual worlds. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 48-52. Retrieved from WilsonOmnifile database. (200906003461009)
Hew,, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010, January). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in k-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33-55. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x
Prensky, M. ( 2008, November). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1004-1019. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_2.x